Should the US Government fund the NRA?

The constitution gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. No such gaurentees exist within the bounds of the constitution for straw purchases or reselling without regulation. And that is not a true statement you made.... In my state I can buy 15 handguns a month if I wanted to and resell them 5 mins later to a no named man and I am free and clear if one of those 15 hands guns wind up being used in a crime or killing a child.

I am a gun owner. I personally believe that outside of a hunting rifle, a shot gun and a hand gun that you don't need anything more to defend your home, family or property as civilians in this country.

Here is my plan:
When I purchased my fire arm (a glock who I named Lucy) I purchased it from a licensed reputable gun dealer. I filled out a detailed application, went through a 5 day waiting period and during that time had to attend a weapons safety class. I then registered my weapon with the state and pay my $50 fee every 5 years for my concealed weapon permit.

I didn't have to do that. I could have simply gone to one of the local gun shows that happen about every couple of months and bought ANYTHING I wanted no questions asked. I also have no plans to ever sell my weapon.

What I propose is that every person who buys a gun goes through the exact same process I did. I propose that every weapon manufactured to be sold on the consumer market only be sold to licensed regulated gun dealers. I propose that any consumer wanting to purchase a gun only be allowed to purchase from certified licensed gun dealers and complete the process i did. I propose every weapon you purchase must be registered to the purchaser and like a vehicle they are responsible for anything that happens with that weapon until it is registered as destroyed or sold to a new user through a licensed bonded consignment gun dealer. This consignment dealer would be responsible for ensuring that every step in the original purchase was also done in the resale.

I would also propose new regulations on ammunition purchases. I would eliminate online ammunition purchases and require that all ammunition purchases be made through licensed gun dealers. Increase the prices of ammunition to fund gun safety and victims of gun violence programs. Increased fees on ammunition would also be used to fund research to develop new technology that would literally render a gun useless to anyone other than the registered user i.e. fingerprint recognition on the grip or trigger in order to fire.

Great. Never mind all this new power you propose to give the government--powers which it was never intended to have according to the Constitution (which defines/limits the powers of government, not us)--what are you gonna do about all the crims and whack jobs who routinely ignore the law and buy guns whichever way they can?

See, that's the crux of the issue here. Gun (people) control advocates never seem to be able to explain how all their new proposed laws will actually stop those who have no intention of following the law. All gun (people) control advocates manage to do is disarm the law abiding citizens (or those who simply don't want to go through all the red tape to get a gun) leaving only the cops and crims (sometimes the same people) with guns.

You see how well that seems to work in all these mass shootings where a nutjob is free to kill as many as he wants on account of being in a 'gun free' zone. I believe the appropriate phrase to reference in this situation is ducks in a barrel.

OK, now my plan: stick to the Constitution. Let every man/woman who wants a gun be able to buy AND carry one one as is his/her right. Let every man/woman then become a defacto policeman or protector of the society gestalt. Think about this seriously. Do you suppose a nutjob would be as willing to open up in a crowded theater, mall or school if s/he knew multiple persons among his/her proposed victims was packing? I don't.

Now think about the date 9-11-2001. What do you suppose would happen to the terrorist hijackers that day had the passengers aboard those four flights not been disarmed before boarding. Suppose as few as two percent of the passengers/crew on each flight had been armed. What do you think would have happened differently?

Ok where to start.... There was so much in that to address. There was neatly coded language that was for 10th'ers & the government is coming to get your guns crowd and everything.

Ok let's start with WHAT NEW POWERS??

Powers to regulate?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The only direct or implied regulation in the exact reading is that every law abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. Since you are adapting a very strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that is the only stipulation, if you are law abiding you can have one.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents regulation and safety laws being enacted to ensure that only law abiding citizens are taking advantage of the 2nd amendment. There is nothing that prevents we the people from creating regulations so that gun ownership is treated with more importance and responsibility than it treated now which is as if its some "harmless hobby" for overgrown children.

See I believe that just as important as the second amendment is the opening of of the constitution, which reads
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The phrases "we the people" and " insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" all gives US the right to develop regulations that ensure we resepect each others inalienable rights enshrined in the constitution including LIFE & LIBERTY and not just the second!

And you are right we will never regulate "crazy" or "acting upon criminal behavior". We can however draw a line in the sand that separates criminal from law abiding citizen when it comes to accessing guns that have the ability wreak so much havoc on society.

"Oh where to start" indeed. How 'bout here:

"There was neatly coded language that was for 10th'ers & the government is coming to get your guns crowd and everything."

You don't know me, and you doubtless don't personally know any other individual with whom you discuss this issue. You CERTAINLY don't have enough data to assume we're all "10th'ers (whatever the hell that means)" or that any of us fear that "the government is coming to get [our] guns." Moreover, the fact that you've lumped me in with this 'crowd' of imaginary people demonstrates to ME that you are incapable of addressing your opposition WITHOUT resorting to ad hominem.

In short, you lose right here. Shocked I'm not.

In the interest of civility, however, I would remind you of that which you already know. People are divided on this issue not along a line of 'guns/no guns,' but along a basic understanding of even more basic human rights--the right to self defense being one of them. By whatever system of 'logic' you have determined that the framers intended for you/the government to have the power to 'regulate' human rights as you/it sees fit. I disagree. I'm no more likely to change your mind (in favor of mob tyranny) than you are to change mine (in favor of human rights/liberty).

You've chosen your side of the force and I've chosen mine. As long as each of us agrees to leave the other alone to live his/her life as s/he chooses in respect of the rights of others, we should get along fine. If either one of us chooses alternately, each of us will just as doubtlessly reap the consequences. :-)

"I wasn't calling you names."

Then SPECIFICALLY to whom were you referring in regard to "10th'er" paranoid types? Seems I was the only one with whom you were conversing. Are you prone to talking in stereotype-ese? If so, how's a correspondent to know you AREN'T throwing them into your pigeonhole? (BTW, what the hell is a "10th'er"? :-) )

"I thought I was dealing with a person that doesn't get offended by straight talk."

"Straight talk" as perhaps you're used to giving, perhaps.

"I see that is clearly not the case."

You 'see' nothing, but in time, perhaps you might. I have high hopes for you. :->

"You certaintly haven't identified yourself as those things, . . ."

CORRECT! Very GOOD! :-)

". . .however you respond as it offended you personally. "

I get offended when somebody pigeonholes me, yes. I even get offended when people are pigeonholed in general. I'm 'sensitive' that way. ROFL!

"When you say things like you did, the philosophy or ethos of those groups kind of come to mind. "

THAT'S the problem! You don't seem to be able to analyze this issue WITHOUT assuming you know every subtle detail of a person's position. Do you project this kind of ethos appraisal onto other groups--gays or African Americans, for instance? I'd wager not. That being the case, what makes second amendment/human rights advocates so special? :-)

As it happens, for every person I've heard debate either side of the gun control issue, EACH person has offered a different take on the matter. For some the departure from the 'norm' for that group is only marginal; for others the differences radically depart from the stereotypical gun nut/gun control nut.

"I'll try to keep in mind your delicate sensibilities going forward."

That will be remarkably easy (and thanks for caring): just avoid stereotypes. They're wrong by definition. All of them.

Anyway, at least you're a good sport. I've been blocked for giving gun control advocates HALF this amount of grief. :-D